This is actually a pretty decent article coming out the the New York Times. It describes Obama’s increasing use of executive powers to bypass Congress, Republicans, or anyone else he deems in the way.
It outlines many of the ways and the times when Obama has chosen to act unilaterally. Of course, presidents in the past have done so, but none so blatantly as Obama — going so far to declare a formal “We Can’t Wait” initiative from the White House last fall to move forward on items he for which he doesn’t want to wait for Congress to oppose act.
The things that strikes me about Obama’s actions is the hypocrisy of his executive activism in light of his chastisement of the Supreme Court hearings on Obamacare. Just a month ago, Obama accused SCOTUS of “judicial activism” when the White House arguments appeared not to go so well during the 3 day case. I wrote about that hypocrisy here . And yet, Obama continues to wage his war his way, regardless of the constitutionality of his actions.
Even though it’s crunch time for tax season, it’s worth it to mention that the Buffett rule vote failed today in the Democrat-led Senate.
Interestingly, in Reuter’s coverage, it mentions that the vote ” failed to garner the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to move to a full debate and vote on the bill aimed at getting more tax revenues out of the wealthy. However, I had to read through the article twice to find the actual vote tally. Reuter’s spelled out some of the number words, making it difficult to readily see just how little support the measure had:
Fifty-one senators voted for the bill, while 45 senators voted no, effectively killing it. Republican Senator Susan Collins voted for the tax hike, while Democratic Senator Mark Pryor voted against it.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said after the vote,
“The wealthiest one percent takes home the highest share of the nation’s income since the early ’20s, the roaring ’20s. Times are tough for many middle class American families. Millionaires and billionaires aren’t sharing the pain or the sacrifice, not one bit. Last year there were 7,000 millionaires who didn’t pay a single penny in federal income taxes.”
Republican Sen. Jon Kyl said in response,
“You’ve got the top 10 percent of taxpayers paying 70 percent of all the taxes, earning 45 percent of the income. Those are certainly the wealthy, and they’re certainly paying a big share. How about less wealthy? The bottom 95 percent — in other words, everybody but the top 5 percent — pays 41.3 percent of income taxes, earns 65 percent of the money, of the income. Is this fair? The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 51 percent of all households, which includes both filers and nonfilers, had either zero or negative income tax liability in 2009. People who do not share in the sacrifice of paying taxes have little direct incentive to care whether the government is spending and taxing too much. Maybe that’s why the president has no problem with even more Americans getting a free ride.”
What I find most interesting, however, is that while everyone explains that the Buffett rule seeks to ensure that Americans who make more than $1 million pay 30% in taxes no matter the source of income, generally two crucial things are missing in the discussion.
1) The actual name of the “Buffet Rule” bill is the “Paying a Fair Share Act”. According to the Library of Congress,
The “Paying a Fair Share Act,” introduced by Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, would apply to anyone whose adjustable gross income exceeds $1 million. Those who itemize their deductions would get a credit equal to the value of their charitable contribution deductions, so as not to discourage charitable giving. To measure whether a millionaire is paying at least 30% of his income in taxes, the bill would take into account what the individual paid in federal income and payroll taxes plus the new 3.8 Medicare surtax set to take effect in 2013.The minimum effective tax rate would be phased in for those with incomes between $1 million and $2 million.
2) The mandated 30% rule is a direct attack and typical government lie-speak to undo capital gains and qualified dividends rate, both of which are currently 15%. As a tax advisor to higher income earners, no one generally pays under 30%, unless the majority of their income is from long term capital gains and/or qualified dividends. Obama probably figures that most people do not/will not realize this, which is why it is never mentioned by him or the press.
So, there you have it. At least for the time being, this odious bill, the Buffett Rule, cannot advance even past the Dems. It will be worthwhile to keep an eye on it during the election season to see how it is used to foment class warfare between the haves- and have-nots.
Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget proposal was defeated Wednesday night in the House of Representatives by a vote of 414-0. Not a single Democrat supported it. This vote was reminiscent of the defeat of Obama’s budget last year in the Senate, by a vote of 97-0. No Democrats would put their name to that budget, either.
Clearly, considering that we are now 1065 days without a budget is result of the lack of any substantive and serious thought coming from the White House. Two years, two unanimous defeats in two different parts of Congress can only lead to one conclusion: Barack Obama’s economic ideas on taxes and deficit reduction are so vastly out of touch with both Republicans and Democrats that no one is willing to back them.
A recent article in the WSJ discusses a newly-released report. Tax breaks, for all segments of the population, total more than $1 trillion. Such a staggering figure — roughly the size of the annual federal deficit budget — reinforces something I have stressed repeatedly: the need to overhaul the tax code.
However, the report also
citing political opposition, technical challenges and other reasons, said that “it may prove difficult to gain more than $100 billion to $150 billion in additional tax revenues” by eliminating tax breaks. That likely would leave little for reducing tax rates, perhaps only enough for one or two percentage points in the top individual rate, while maintaining the same level of revenue
On this two year anniversary of ObamaCare, we must remember a greater anniversary, the sage words spoken 237 years ago today.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
This begs the question. If ObamaCare was such a monumental piece of legislation as the White House claims, why no mention in the news today?
Thomas Buch-Andersen, host of the Danish TV show Detektor, mocked President Obama’s political rhetoric in a recent episode….Buch-Andersen wonders aloud, “Maybe the copy key got stuck on the presidential speechwriter’s keyboard.”
Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, resorted to insults instead of information today, when asked about Paul Ryan’s new budget proposal. The Washington Examiner reports,
Carney concluded that “the budget proposed by Chairman Ryan and supported overwhelmingly already by Republicans suggests that those problems” — aggressive ignorance and diminished comprehension — “exist in the minds of the supporters of that plan.”
Instead of offering ideas and counter-points to Ryan’s proposal, we get name calling from the White House. Is it any wonder that we are now 1057 days without a budget?
New estimates released from the CBO suggest that ObamaCare will cost at least $1.76 TRILLION over ten years — up from the $900 Billion touted by Obama.
Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO’s standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama’s pledge that the legislation would cost “around $900 billion over 10 years.” When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.
By this time next year, we’ll have the full ten years (2014 – 2023) time frame to get the truest estimate of cost, which is likely to exceed $2 trillion.
Philip Klein, the Washington Examiner correspondent who covered the above information, also released a corollary article that discusses the impact of employer health-care changes and the rising number of Medicare recipients on ObamaCare costs and coverage. And for those who love raw date, the entire CBO report can be accessed here.
Hats off to Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconson) for pressing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about the economic and insurance impact of ObamaCare.
Johnson challenged Sebelius over a number of the Obama administration’s claims about the new health care law, namely that it will reduce the deficit and allow individuals to keep their current healthcare plans.
This video clip is worthwhile to watch in its entirety, as Selelius is unable to answer basic facts about the legislation. Thanks to the Washington Free Beacon for providing the information. Let’s just hope Senator Johnson will not be expected to apologize for making her uncomfortable…
